I totally disagree! SANBI joined iSpot to use it as a recording scheme and it works very well.
One can bulk upload (we do! - admittedly it is slow and limited to 100-200 observations overnight) < correction: one could bulk upload - there is a bug in the wizard that now prevents this >
But the correct answer is that you are not using iSpot correctly (or perhaps the UK OU does not have iSpot configured properly): iSpot should be one of the databases supplying data to the NBN, and that is where you should be retrieving iSpot data. Duplicating data by submitting them to multiple recording schemes should not be encouraged.
Clearly,the user base and user expectations of the UK and Southern African communities are worlds apart! And quite honestly, this travesty of a new site is seriously affecting our data retrieval and causing unacceptable levels of data corruption.
NO! This is a simple programming bug (Bug #478 posted 13 July) and has nothing to do with increasing the ID certainty.
And you are also wrong in your statement that the “Other Organism” reputation did not exist: There are lots of users with Other Observation reputations: e,g,
It was only in Sept 2014 that Other Organisms became cocked up! It is still not fixed 3 years later! The irony is that OO became reputationless at the same time that its icon changed from a ? to an amoeba. Try and figure that one out?
Nothing and I don’t mind. The Project (not Observation) was suddenly stolen by Global from UK&I - it happened to two of my projects at the same time.
It is now BOTH a UK and Global - depends on the link.
I was fretted at first because it was my signature and that failed immediately, as did a few other links.
Apart from it reflecting the site’s bad behaviour, it is no inconvenience,
Thanks though
The word Bug is inappropriate Bad Code Error (BCE) is better, bugs are mostly nice.
the “done” tick for uploading pictures goes OK after the first picture is loaded, any outstanding uploads are ignored.
previously “confirming” and observation during uploading resulted in an Error 500 code and one having to start again. I presume that this bug - # 497 on our bug list - is now considered “fixed” by the programmers.
The only feedback is under news on the home page. And then when one tests what is claimed …
(although I have usually annotated the news items when the supposed fixes have not worked (about 50% of the time) - but alas who reads comments in the news items?)
Hardly anyone after the first visit.
Is it possible to sent a ‘flag’ if a new comment is added to something we have contributed to? Don’t even consider a response!
No-one in their right mind does that. I did and it works every time!
Actually I was looking for any scientific name with campanulata in it.
works here https://www.ispotnature.org/search?query=%3F%20campanulata and found the Stalked Jellyfish I was looking for
I am getting this bug quite often, but at last I captured it, and I think I might have an explanation. (well I do, but I thought I had the cause, which I don’t)
Note that the list below does not match the name! “dis cape” – but after displaying correctly (see below-below) for a few seconds it just reverted to a search for “dis”. I cannot reproduce it outright: it does not always happen. But something is making it ignore the “cape” and only search the “dis” – but I am not certain what the trigger is.
“Dis cape” should find:
This :: (although technically it should not be finding Ceroplesis capensis distanti or Galumna capensis dissimilis (the order is wrong!)
I think it happens when I type very fast …
That is the easiest way to make it happen …
Although sometimes you don’t have to type anything at all (I cleared the box of Dias prot and it reverted to this – after displaying correctly for Dias prot).
That’s a long one. Do you mean Search is Hopeless, I hope so.
Perhaps the Code Team can look into the way Search is rendered - two way process please @miked .
Make it simple and accurate to begin with (ask any user), make it more useful and complex as time goes by (ask Tony)
No: how will the user know? Ridiculous: Ask Tony first.
to make it simple:
Display only one instance of each matching name for the scientific name…
In cases where the match is a synonym display: “OldName (this is now CurrentName)”
In cases where it is a current name, just display the “CurrentName” matches
IF the user chooses the synonym, iSpot must come up: “Do you want to use the Synonym (OldName) or the current name (CurrentName): we recommend the latter unless you have strong reasons to disagree”:
AND THEN (like in the old iSpot) show the matching common names for the scientific name entered to choose from.
If the common name is entered:
show all the matches, followed by their scientific name and the group (e.g. King Sugarbush ! Protea cynaroides (plant)
BUT IF the scientific name is already filled, then warn the user that this will overwrite the scientific name.
If there is no match for the scientific name in the dictionary then:
Warn the user “This name is not in the dictionary for this community. Are you sure you want to add it. Please leave a note in the dictionary forum requesting this to be added to your community dictionary.”
(It would probably be too much to expect more, although iNaturalist allows you to ADD the name to their dictionary!!)
It is quite elementary. Although the database is complicated the process is very simple. The issue appears to be that the display in the dropdown box is complicated: showing both the current names and synonyms on the same page. The solution is simple: add a display field to the dictionary that shows the display (name if current, and name (this is now Name)) in the dropdown.
GOOD CODING Bad Code Error solved?
17 minutes to upload 63Mb in 10 pictures. Confirmation box unavailable until the last byte was loaded. Good code repair - hooray
This is a dictionary error or a BUG!
Any ID should reallocate the group to that of the LIkely ID.
It does not matter what group was there before.
Are there any “Lepidoptera” IDs after June that are invertebrates? (I tried checking but you guys identify all of your ruddy moths. Most of our moths have not even been described (I jest - a few (9900 species) have been described - we think it is over half of them), but most of yours are identified to species - insane!!!: So I cannot find another Lepidoptera ID (esp with the dictionary one page only List bug: https://www.ispotnature.org/communities/uk-and-ireland/species-dictionary/NHMSYS0000841034/lepidoptera/observations) so I dont know.
